4 ms·
That's because "character flaws" on a personal level are often required to achieve exceptional results. Not sufficient. But often required. If Jobs were a qui
by avalys 6y ago
That's because "character flaws" on a personal level are often required to achieve exceptional results.
Not sufficient. But often required.
If Jobs were a quiet, contemplative, respectful person who was careful to keep track of where he heard what idea and assign credit where credit was due - it's unlikely we'd have Apple. That's just a different personality type.
- watwut 6y agoWhy putting character flaws into quotes? They are still character flaws, the same way as same behavior is if it is not coming from rich powergul person. There is no reason to pretend it is something special. If they helped him to get more money and more credit and what not, that does not make them not flaws.
- fenderbluesjr 6y agoCalling them flaws would seem to me to be a subjective position. Personality traits are perceived differently depending on what the observer is sensitive to. Somebody that is considered rude in a yoga clinic might not be perceived the same way on a construction site.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoIs there any culture in which claiming credit for the ideas and innovations of others is considered positive? And how many would agree it's healthy?
- kortilla 6y agoThey aren’t “flaws” to everyone. One person’s asshole is another person’s straight shooter.
- watwut 6y agoWhich part do you perceive as "straight shooter"?
- gavanwilhite 6y agoI believe this is the wrong way to think about this. Character flaws are often associated with certain effective traits, but are not chained to them. In your example, one can be vocal, biased-twoards-action, and low-bullshit, while also giving credit where credit is due. I think it’s far from obvious that Jobs would have been a less effective leader if he had addressed his character shortcomings. I similarly feel the same way about current leaders like Musk. He could do some inner work, become far less of a jerk, and be equally or more effective.
- oblio 6y agoThe sad thing is, they don't need that personal growth. Their luck or other character traits made/make them successful, they're rich and quite powerful, attractive to women, etc. So they'll never do what you're saying. For an extreme example, look at Trump. In Romanian we have a saying: "the only thing that will straighten a hunchback's back is the coffin".
- ArloL 6y agoThis has been on my mind a lot lately. IMHO personal growth of the founders/leaders is correlated with long-term success. A healthy organization should be able to adapt to changes in the market. The same is true for a healthy individual. And more importantly as leader(s) of an organization - because you must lead by example. E.g. if you have a healthy way to keep your ego in check or be aware of your flaws you will be able to notice issues in organizational structures; if you're willing to change when presented with new information so will the organization; if you micromanage everything you've fixed the speed of adaptation to your own - can be good - can be bad; if you need validation you will surround yourself with people that validate you no matter what; if you twist your reality so that you're always on top those lies will seep into the culture. It's kind of like Conway's law but more like organizations design structures (communication, hierarchies, etc.) which mirror their leaders identity/character/personality/soul...
- vagrantJin 6y ago> "the only thing that will straighten a hunchback's back is the coffin". Thats so cold. Do Romanians generally call a spade, a spade?
- refurb 6y agoNo. That’s just coverage bias. The leaders who are successful but aren’t dicks don’t have a ton of stories about them in the media about being brilliant dicks.